Jump to content

LuckyPlan

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LuckyPlan

  1. No. This has come up before. The reviewer should NOT go through the other caches figuring things out. That makes them the owner of the cache and Groundspeak has maintained that they're a listing service to avoid being sued. If a CO goes missing the reviewers do not go out and archive all their traditionals. They let the users file a NA and then archive the caches. So until Groundspeak puts in the guidelines that if when a CO goes "missing" all their caches get archived, this argument is false. So I feel I should expound on my example to make it more relevant: Suppose a CO has a series of 30 piggyback unknown caches (the first being traditional and the others piggybacking). And lets suppose cache number 3 in the series goes missing, as well as the CO. Caches 4-30 have all become unfindable because the coords to cache number 4 can't be obtained. So it will take several NA logs for the rest of the series to get archived. In which, with each NA log, the reviewer will eventually be the one to pull the plug because they are often the ones who have to deal with the NA logs if the owner doesn't respond. Reviewers should not have to deal with that may NA logs. If the series was simplified to one Multi, only one archive will need to take place. Or if the series were just themed (all traditionals), then when one goes missing, typically only that cache needs archived... much less maintenance issues. ALL the caches from that owner do not need archived, only those which cannot be found because a previous stage went missing. Not here to argue of course, just clarifying myself to express my understanding of why the reviewer is not publishing the series, as you asked. I hope it does turn into an amazing series. I loved series, whether they be themed, a trail or whatever. I love heading to caches that I know wont be another LPC before I get to them. Well, it's about time I get out there and cache.
  2. Well, this is what I'll say on my previous comments: When I say I know they're out there, I don't necessary say those are allowed or should be allowed now. There are thousands of caches out there that need attention as far as the rules go, but that's besides the point. As far as circumventing goes: Many times reviewers don't catch it or the worst is when after a cache is published, the CO modifies the listing in a way to their liking to an extent that the cache is no longer within guidelines. It happens and it often goes unreported. It is exactly my point that GC doesn't care about numbers, this is why they prefer if it was just one multi. It simplifies the system and database. I would imagine a huge reason for the multi type is to keep the caches organized. For example: a CO has a piggyback series and one cache goes missing. And worse yet, the CO has gone missing. Now it is left up to the reviewer to figure out the system and go through and archive several caches, not just one. Let's face it, this is a concern because CO's go missing all the time and reviewers shouldn't have the responsibility to archive a whole bunch of caches in this case because one cache went missing . This may have not been a serious issue in the past which is probably why reviewers would sometimes let it slide. As far as the actual guidelines go, if the situation describes a multi cache, than the guidelines say the series must be defined as a multi-cache or modified to fit the guidelines of traditional caches. There of course is no strict line in the guidelines that says "dot dot dot" is not allowed... Let at least not that I'm aware of. Sounds like a nice set of caches though. Hope your friend gets them published.
  3. Oh, now I see what this comment is referring to. "the death of geocaching" thread I presume? That's funny,... Well for the record this is just a coincidence. I hope this thread doesn't turn into that... Note to keystone: please close this thread if it does.
  4. I still find micros don't get me wrong. There are many micrOs on my favorite list. Some of them are the most creative. I was just thinking of the word regular the other week and thought it was worth a chuckle.
  5. Whoe. That was not neccesarry. This reminds me of when people say, if you don't like the cache, than don't do it. If people don't like a thread than there's no need to comment. There is definately no need to just come in just to be extremely rude and tell people to get a life. This is for people to express thoughts... Freely.
  6. We went on a cruise down there for our honeymoon. We only snatched one earth cache on grand Turk and only spent a few minutes on like two others. Not much luck. But hey, at least we got the territory in our find history. I recommend spend some good time looking at logs and such BEFORE you go. You don't want to waste your time out there on the computer or gps or looking for something that has the last 5 attempts DNFs. And favorite points of course are a good indicator. But there probably aren't that many of those out there since favorites are fairly new and those caches don't exactly get hit up every day. Have fun. It's beautiful down there!
  7. Hah! So true. Made me laugh inside. Probably add some pill manufactures and a big old rubbermaid logo.
  8. No. There are several series like this out there so they have been allowed. There have been several topics in the forums where people were asking what are the pro and cons of using either method. Besides, the only difference between a series and a multi is how many smilies you get and Groundspeak has never cared about keeping score. Oh I know they're out there. However, it wSmy understanding that GC wants them either separate Traditionals or a multi. They may have been allowed in the very early 2000's however. I believe One reason is because when someone selects a mystery cache, it's confusing if they have to backtrack to a different cache first. One purpose of multi was to avoid this and group the stages together. So you start with the first and move on. This simplifies the database of caches. If they were separate caches and one stage goes missing or needs archived, all the other caches are affected (they may néed to all be archived as well) and may not get the necessary attention. Unfortunately however, it seems people like to circumvent this so they can offer more smileys and therefore have more people attemp their caches.
  9. What you described is not a standard cache series. I dont believe those have ever been allowed. That sounds like trying to split a multi up into several caches. You can either do a series of Traditionals or create a multi. If you want to link caches together (requiring the find of one to discover the next), you must combine the caches into one multi. You can however just link traditional caches together with them being themed together or in a "trail" along a common path. Those are standard series. There was no recent change in policy, it has been this way. Happy caching!
  10. I was thinking the other day of something kind of ironic. I'm one who is starting to get pretty frustrated with so many micros (even though technically most of my finds are micros). I prefer to find regular sized caches but I just realized a regular sized cache is no longer regular. Websters defines "regular" as "conforming to the normal or usual amount of inflection". Well, I don't know the exact numbers but it seems like there are 5-10 times as many micro sized caches than there are "regular" sized caches. (and I AM considering non-urban hides). And this gap seems to be increasing every day. We may just see micros to be renamed regulars... Oh that would be a horrific sad day. But the way micros keep on popping up left and right, it would technically make since as far as semantics go. Okay, okay, I realize this probably won't happen... Just another rant on so so many micros saturating the world. Traveling to a cache to find it is another lpc is really getting under my skin. And it's starting to appear that all these lpcs are the "norm" or should I say regular. But I would not be surprised if GC relabels regulars as something else. Another ten more years and it would not make since to call an ammo cam sized container "regular" if this size is less than one percent of the active caches.
  11. The feedback site can barely be viewed on the iPhone now. All messed up. I hate how they try to "fix" what is not broken.
  12. Sounds like you did the absolute perfect thing. As you mention you did, it's always good to be polite since it really could have been a mistake (ie: they logged the wrong cache). But if I logged the wrong cache, I would be very gratefull to be notified.
  13. I was recently looking through the caches I recently found and noticed one was recently archived. It was on the side of the road, I believe at the base of a power pole. A few weeks after I found it, apparently the property owner of the bordering farmland finally figured out wy peoPle were stopped on that road. He made a geocaching login and marked his one found. His comment: I threw this geocache away... STAY OFF MY PROPERTY. The local reviewer also received a note from him. So he archived it and reminded the CO to remember to get permission. The cache might not have technically been ON his property, but close enough to tick him off, or have cachers wonder onto his property.
  14. Oh, do you remember the time when GC.com was so much better. With all the changes in the site, I opened up the feedback forums and was reminded of something beautiful that was taken away: the old smileys. I've never got used to the new ones and don't think I ever will. Those fuzzy bad-colors make my eyes hurt. The old ones are clearly the best: While we're on the subject, I encourage others to vote to at least bring back the old smileys: Bring back the old smileys
  15. Ignored caches are still showing up in search results. Please fix this issue. The search eventually becomes useless since the only caches that show up (therefore taking up the 10, 20, or 30 results) are caches that should be ignored (ie: you know are not there). PLEASE FIX THIS ISSUE SO THAT THE APP BECOMES USEFUL AGAIN to those of us who ignore many caches.
  16. Sometimes I can wait several minutes and it will load one page. But many times, the server is just timing out. Only the forums work. This is ridiculous. We're paying and they can't even keep it running on the weekends. I wish GS would give us some feedback on when we can use the site again .
  17. Its always great seeing an expert emerge after a year of geocaching. As you state there are areas that are not saturated. If you are so keen on placing a cache, then do it there. Otherwise, first person there, is one to place the cache. And as for your respect of the cacher? its very curious to me on how a veiled forum post, equates your respect of said cacher. He put those caches out there for people like you to find, he is a prolific cacher in your area. Yes some may need maintenace from time to time, and its sometimes hard to maintain caches, because life takes you in a different direction. (Since I haven't cached for a long while, I need to get on a maintenance run soon). So in other words, keep calm, carry on. He is indeed a very prolific cacher and has more experience than I may ever will, which is why I respect him so much. It can get a little frustrating sometimes though, not about finding open areas, but just neglected caches... But again I didn't meant to complain. Not a big deal, just was curious if other areas have such an active cache placer and if GC will or should take action to encourage higher quality caches... Well besides the action they took with the recent newsletter about maintaining hides. By the way, thanks for the compliment of only a year of caching... My first cache I found the day before we got married in November! Finally a hobby that keeps us out and active. Thanks everyone.
  18. I guess I should clarify myself a little bit. I misspoke when I said "isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas". We are still quite a ways from not having any room left. It's just that I feel when people place several hundred caches, they usually never return to maintain them and they remain until too many needs maintenances are posted (And unfortunately, few people post those when they should). And I can't blame them for not returning, that is just way too many caches. But I feel that more responsibility should be taken in some cases. Offering for locals to adopt could be one way, or maybe disabling when several dnfs have been posted in a row after a solid stream of finds. I never meant for anybody to look up that user, which I feel bad for. I do not want to rip on him or complain. (Mostly, I was just curious if other areas had a user who places thousands of caches as well.) Again, the user I was initially referring to, I have much respect for. He places many that are in fact good, but unfortunately many are neglected. But I am grateful for them. Just yesterday, we got over one hundred of his caches on his "power trail", it was quite an adventure. And with his permission, we replaced logs to help him out. He puts on many events and has been caching nearly since the beginning. He has more experience that I probably ever will. That I do very much respect him for and hope to meet him soon. He actually does caching tours which I want to take him up on. Well, it's about time we go out and find more caches, thanks for all the cache owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  19. Where we live, there is a cacher who ownes about 2 1/2 thousand caches under his account. Many/most are of very poor quality and of course, unmaintained. He really is taking up so much space he dominates and frankly, isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas. It has got very frustrating sometimes. He's a good guy and everything, but I don't know what utility he is getting out of all the caches he owns. I was wondering, are other areas having this problem? Does anybody think GC.com will limit or should limit this type of behavior to encourage better quality caches?
  20. Wow, this is low blow. I'm a newbie because I have just under 300 finds? So how many finds do you need to have to express an opinion on the threads? Okay, so I may not have thousands of fine, but I do believe I'm allowed to express my opinion... right? I was just giving my opinion, hence why I said "I strongly FEEL". Again, as my opinion... I see it that if they the include another SIZE category, bison tubes would be considered part of the nano category because their volume would classify them as a nano. According to Groundspeak in their Knowledge Books, a nano is classified as a micro under 10ml. Therefore, most bison tubes/oil vials/ID holders/Pill holders would fall into this category (well, there are those larger "scuba" style bison tubes that might be over 10ml). So, it is my opinion that bison tubes can be called nanos according to their size. However, if the point of adding a nano size is to let the cacher know what type of container they should be looking for, that is a thymbal size magnet nano, then maybe they should just make a nano attribute that would corrilate to this type of container. That's not a bad idea. But please don't imply that I don't know anything or shouldn't have an opinion because I have under 300 finds. Perhaps I get offended easy (I AM a newbie to the forums) but I don't think I deserve that.
  21. Yes that is generally what is being refered to when someone says bison tube.
  22. He he. I remember that suggestion. I was that ONE person who made that comment about bisons being classified as nanos. I feel special I strongly feel that if it is so small to only contain a tiny log, it's a nano. Non-nano micros should at least be able to hold a pathtag.
×
×
  • Create New...